[Prefatory Note: This essay was
originally written in conjunction with the treatise in May of 2000 and
revised slightly for inclusion with this project. The author's views are
still substantially the same but not in all parameters; therefore the reader
is advised to read the revised treatise - scheduled for a January 2003
release - for a more precise understanding of the author's current position
on the liturgical subject - ISM 1/25/03]

This essay is addressed specifically to those who are not "traditionalists",
"integrists", "pseudo-traditionalists", "pan-traditionalists" or whatever
label you wish to put on those who are obstinate in their scorn of the
Magisterium, a refusal to obey her, and in essence who are either crypto-schismatic
heretics or explicitly heretical in their philosophies. No, I address this
article to those who are my brethren who are what I call "Tridentine" Catholics
who are seeking the restoration or promotion of the Tridentine Mass to
the Catholic Church as a whole. All too often even those who admit to the
validity of the Pauline Mass still have misconceptions about the deliberations
of the Council, its motives, or even what its intentions were and any addressing
of the critical issues that face us today on the liturgical front. This
means taking into account ALL aspects of the liturgy including those that
represent legitimate reforms of the Tridentine Rite: a concept that seems
to be anathema to many in the Church who favour the older Roman Rite.

For the record, I support a wide application of the older Roman Rite
for those who desire it; however I draw the line at the idea that we should
restore the Tridentine Mass in its fullness to the Church as the principal
rite. This essay is not addressed to those who question the validity of
the Pauline Mass (aka the Rite of Pope Paul VI). The focus of this work
is on the historical aspects of the liturgy. The goal is to demonstrate
that the Pauline Mass is not a "fabrication" from the standpoint of the
elements it contains. It instead represents a legitimate restoration and
reform of the liturgy however badly this has worked out in practice at
times. Many reasons can be postulated and indeed the authors of TCR and
other publications have made a number of very legitimate criticisms of
the Pauline Mass and even parts of Vatican II - as these have been misinterpreted
in the post-Council period - all conducted within the household of faith.
Nevertheless, there are some important areas that need to be addressed
and a few common presumptions shared by those who favour the old Roman
Rite which are factually inaccurate. I will try to address them here in
brief.

What must be recognized by all regardless of their positions on the liturgy
is that the history of Catholicism on the whole is one of diversity in
worship. As the renowned theologian Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (in light
of the later 1984 Indult) had noted in "The Ratzinger Report" (in an interview
with Vittorio Messori):

"Prior to Trent a multiplicity of rites and liturgies had been
allowed within the Church. The Fathers of the Council of Trent took the
liturgy of the city of Rome and prescribed it on the whole Church; they
only retained those Western liturgies which had existed for more than two
hundred years. This is what happened, for instance, with the Ambrosian
rite of the Dioceses of Milan. If it would foster devotion in many believers
and encourage respect for the piety of particular Catholic groups, I would
personally support a return to the ancient situation, i.e., to a certain
liturgical pluralism. Provided, of course, that the legitimate character
of the reformed rites was emphatically affirmed, and there was a clear
delineation of the extent and nature of such an exception permitting the
celebration of the pre-conciliar liturgy…Catholicity does not mean uniformity…it
is strange that the post-conciliar pluralism has created uniformity in
one aspect at least: it will not tolerate a high standard of expression…"
[1]

"Liturgy for the Catholic is his common homeland, the source
of his identity. And another reason why it must be a ‘given’ and a ‘constant’
is that, by means of the ritual, it manifests the holiness of God. The
revolt against what has been described as the ‘old rubricist rigidity’,
which was accused of stifling ‘creativity’ has made the liturgy into a
do-it-yourself patchwork and trivialized it, adapting it to our mediocrity…[2]

The Council rightly reminded us that liturgy also means ‘actio’
something done and it demanded that the faithful be guaranteed an ‘actuosa
participatio’, an active participation…But the way it has been applied
following the Council has exhibited a fatal narrowing of perspective. The
impression arose that there was only ‘active participation’ when there
was discernible exterior activity ?speaking, singing, preaching, reading,
shaking hands. It was forgotten that the Council also included silence
under ‘actuosa participatio’, for silence facilitates a really deep personal
participation, allowing us to listen inwardly to the Lord’s word. Many
liturgies now lack all trace of this silence." [3]

The situation in the Church at the present time is certainly not ideal
and there are problems that need to be addressed. But the problems go much
deeper than the mere superficialities of reverting wholesale back to the
Tridentine Ritual which would be just as disastrous for the Church as the
wholesale discrediting of the Tridentine Ritual was after the promulgation
of the Revised Missal. History should not repeat itself here because it
would be even more disasterous a second time around then it was the first
time. It is hardly outside the bounds of orthodoxy to point out that the
handling of the Tridentine Rite after the Revised Missal was promulgated
on the part of many bishops in the Church was disgraceful. More then anything
else - except the liberal "interpretations" of the Council’s intentions,
this was a very damaging process undertaken. The rationale was hardly one
that was historically justifiable. (As I hope to point out a bit later
on in this article.) However, before getting to that, an all-important
maxim of the Faith needs to be reinforced.

To seek to restore what is perceived as the "good" of the Tridentine
Ritual by ripping down and demeaning the Revised Missal in any way violates
the ancient maxim of one cannot do evil in the hope that something good
comes out of it. There is a difference between legitimate criticisms and
borderline-heretical speculations. While self-styled "traditionalists"
unquestionably fail to make this distinction in the discussion of these
issues, they are not the only ones that do this. I fear also that many
who are loyal to the Church who nevertheless base their critiques on a
flawed view of Church history particularly as it applies to the liturgy.
(Even those who make criticisms that are fully within the bounds of orthodoxy.)
As the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy (Sacrosanctum Concilium) from
the Second Vatican Council noted, the purpose of the reform was to achieve
the following aims:

III THE REFORM OF THE SACRED LITURGY

21. In order that the Christian people may more certainly derive
an abundance of graces from the sacred liturgy, holy Mother Church desires
to undertake with great care a general restoration of the liturgy itself.
For the liturgy is made up of unchangeable elements divinely instituted,
and of elements subject to change. These latter not only may be changed
but ought to be changed with the passage of time, if they have suffered
from the intrusion of anything out of harmony with the inner nature of
the liturgy or have become less suitable. In this restoration both texts
and rites should be drawn up so as to express more clearly the holy things
which they signify. The Christian people, as far as is possible, should
be able to understand them with ease and take part in them fully, actively,
and as a community. [4]

The problem with the defenses of many "Tridentine" Catholics of the
legitimacy of the Pauline Rite is that they fall into many of the same
traps as the "traditionalists" whom they wish to be separated from. They
too make comments defending the Tridentine Ritual most commonly along the
lines of "the Traditional Latin Mass" (Tridentine Rite codified by Pope
Pius V in 1570) is "the Mass of the past 2,000 years" or "the Mass of All
Time". These are comments that betray a profound lack of understanding
of the dynamics of the ancient liturgical traditions of the Church. To
give a few ideas of how different the ancient Masses looked in distinctions
from the Tridentine Mass consider the following examples for starters:

Initially Mass was celebrated in a more intimate house setting and before
Mass there was an "agape" or love feast. The "agape" was dropped in the
early to mid second century and there was a move from primarily worship
in homes to church buildings starting in the fourth century. There was
no "High Altar" used in celebrating Mass but instead a smaller table-form
was the altar of Mass in the earliest time periods. Yet to even "Tridentine"
Catholics the absence of a "High Altar" is anathema (much as it is with
the self-styled "traditionalists").

There are also arguments about changes of the Mass forms along the lines
of replacing certain liturgical sections are ones that boomerang back at
the "traditionalist" and "Tridentine" Catholic alike for one very good
reason: such modifications are not at all uncommon throughout history.
Where is the Te Igitur, Secret, Gloria, or Nicene Creed in the pre-Nicene
Masses??? They are not to be found. The Tridentine Rite did not exist in
the substantial form as we have it now before the eleventh or twelfth centuries.
However, the Canon of the Tridentine Rite received the majority of its
current structure in the fourth to sixth centuries when the Canon was recast
in its form or to quote Fr. Adrian Fortescue on the matter:

This brings us back to the most difficult question: Why and
when was the Roman Liturgy changed from what we see in Justin Martyr to
that of Gregory I? The change is radical, especially as regards the
most important element of the Mass, the Canon…

We have then as the conclusion of this paragraph that at Rome
the Eucharistic prayer was fundamentally changed and recast at some uncertain
period between the fourth and the sixth and seventh centuries. During
the same time the prayers of the faithful before the Offertory disappeared,
THE KISS OF PEACE WAS TRANSFERRED TO AFTER THE CONSECRATION, and the Epiklesis
was omitted or mutilated into our "Supplices" prayer. Of the various theories
suggested to account for this it seems there is so much in favour of Drews's
theory that for the present it must be considered the right one. We
must then admit that between the years 400 and 500 a great transformation
was made in the Roman Canon" (Euch. u. Busssakr., 86). [5]

Pope St. Gregory the Great (590-604) is generally considered to have been
the last to touch the Canon as it existed up until Vatican II. However,
prior to him the Canon was (in the words of Fr. Fortescue) "greatly transformed."
This is not fundamentally different from what Pope Paul VI approved of
with the Pauline Mass canons. One of these canons is a subpar translation
of the Roman Canon (Eucharistic Prayer #1). Another is based heavily on
the old Spanish Mozarbic Anaphoras (Eucharistic Prayer #3). Also, numerous
additions were made in the first centuries of the second millennium including
adding the "filioque" to the Creed and making the Creed a fixture of all
Masses (eleventh century), the introduction of community Low Masses for
the first time (twelfth century), and other modifications through the thirteenth
and fourteenth centuries. (Such as the Offertory prayers, institution of
the Last Gospel and the Tridentine Lavabo respectively.) All of this culminated
in the Old Roman Missal of 1474) that was substantially identical to the
Roman Missal promulgated by Pope St. Pius V in 1570. The "Tridentine" Catholics
believe that the Church was justified in making previous liturgical modifications
but seemingly no longer is in practice (if not in theory). Now admittedly
the Pauline Rite was the largest modification of the Mass liturgy in centuries
but a similar modification was done of the liturgies in the two centuries
preceding Pope Gregory’s time(the 400’s and 500’s). The "Michael
Davies" of that time period (sixth/seventh century) would have written
a series of books on "The Gelastian Upheaval", "Pope Gregory's Mass", etc.
denouncing the "overemphasis on sacrifice which contradicted the more balanced
‘traditional’ outlook of the Mass since the earliest of times" much as
the self-styled ‘traditionalists’ (and even some "Tridentine" Catholics)
have claimed that "the Pauline Mass underemphasizes the importance of the
Sacrifice of the Mass." Does the Pauline Rite "underemphasize" the sacrificial
metaphor or does it merely seem this way because those making the claim
are not sufficiently informed on liturgical history and are overlooking
that the Pauline Rite places an added emphasis on another equally ancient
aspect of the Mass that got neglected in the Middle Ages??? The latter
is the position I hold and I have adequate historical basis for adhering
to this point of view.

A few things need to be looked at here to put these topics in proper
context starting with the Tridentine Mass itself. What is it that creates
the reverence towards the Tridentine Rite in actuality??? Is it solely
because it is so much more ancient and hallowed??? Or is it in part of
a sense of familiarity in a sea of seeming tumult since the close of the
Council??? The canon reforms preceding Pope Gregory the Great were similarly
substantial in the same realm as that of Pope Paul VI so if Vatican II
was wrong to reform the liturgy in a substantial manner then logically
so was Pope St. Gregory the Great and his predecessors (all the way back
to Innocent I) in changing the canon substantially from what it was in
Justin Martyr’s time (second century). We know though that the Sovereign
Pontiff has the right to reform the liturgy as he sees fit because this
was noted in no small detail by Pope Pius XII in Mediator Dei:

48. For this reason, whenever there was question of defining
a truth revealed by God, the Sovereign Pontiff and the Councils in their
recourse to the "theological sources," as they are called, have not seldom
drawn many an argument from this sacred science of the liturgy. For an
example in point, Our predecessor of immortal memory, Pius IX, so argued
when he proclaimed the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary. Similarly
during the discussion of a doubtful or controversial truth, the Church
and the Holy Fathers have not failed to look to the age-old and age-honored
sacred rites for enlightenment. Hence the well-known and venerable maxim,
"Legem credendi lex statuat supplicandi"--let the rule for prayer determine
the rule of belief. The sacred liturgy, consequently, does not decide or
determine independently and of itself what is of Catholic faith. More properly,
since the liturgy is also a profession of eternal truths, and subject,
as such, to the supreme teaching authority of the Church, it can supply
proofs and testimony, quite clearly, of no little value, towards the determination
of a particular point of Christian doctrine...

49. From time immemorial the ecclesiastical hierarchy has exercised
this right in matters liturgical. It has organized and regulated divine
worship, enriching it constantly with new splendor and beauty, to the glory
of God and the spiritual profit of Christians. What is more, it has not
been slow--keeping the substance of the Mass and sacraments carefully
intact--to modify what it deemed not altogether fitting, and to
add what appeared more likely to increase the honor paid to Jesus Christ
and the august Trinity, and to instruct and stimulate the Christian people
to greater advantage...

58. ...[T]he Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to
recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to
introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require
modification. Bishops, for their part, have the right and duty carefully
to watch over the exact observance of the prescriptions of the sacred canons
respecting divine worship…

59. The Church is without question a living organism, and as
an organism, in respect of the sacred liturgy also, she grows, matures,
develops, adapts and accommodates herself to temporal needs and circumstances,
provided only that the integrity of her doctrine be safeguarded. This
notwithstanding, the temerity and daring of those who introduce novel liturgical
practices, or call for the revival of obsolete rites out of harmony
with prevailing laws and rubrics, deserve severe reproof. It has pained
Us grievously to note, Venerable Brethren, that such innovations are actually
being introduced, not merely in minor details but in matters of major importance
as well. We instance, in point of fact, those who make use of the vernacular
in the celebration of the august eucharistic sacrifice; those who transfer
certain feast-days--which have been appointed and established after mature
deliberation--to other dates; those, finally, who delete from the prayer-books
approved for public use the sacred texts of the Old Testament, deeming
them little suited and inopportune for modern times.

60. The use of the Latin language, customary in a considerable
portion of the Church, is a manifest and beautiful sign of unity, as well
as an effective antidote for any corruption of doctrinal truth. In
spite of this, the use of the mother tongue in connection with several
of the rites may be of much advantage to the people. But the Apostolic
See alone is empowered to grant this permission. It is forbidden, therefore,
to take any action whatever of this nature without having requested and
obtained such consent, since the sacred liturgy, as We have said,
is entirely subject to the discretion and approval of the Holy See...
[6]

Vatican II’s Sacrosanctum Concilium set out with the goal of undertaking
(according to its own words) "a general restoration of the liturgy "; therefore
any attempt to determine the intentions of the Council must be to examine
the Pauline Mass and seek to find the rationale of the Council Fathers.
We must look at the Pauline Rite in the manner of a restoration and not
as a "fabrication" or else we are doing an injustice to the Council and
bearing false witness as to its intentions.

The following are passages from a book titled "The Mass Of The Western
Rites" written by the Right Reverend Dom Fernand Cabrol and it was written
decades before the Second Vatican Council. Here are a few interesting passages
with my commentary interspersed:

This, then, is the line we shall follow in this new study of
the Mass; and, while conforming with chronology, it seems to us at the
same time to be the most logical. We shall first examine the Mass in the
first three centuries, during which a certain liturgical unity reigned,
and while the different Christian provinces of the West had not each created
its own special liturgy. We shall then explain (Ch. II) how and why, from
the fourth to the seventh century, those liturgical characteristics which
distinguish the various Latin families became definite. According to these
principles we shall attempt to establish the classification of these liturgical
families and their genealogy. [7]

In other words, there were differences between the earlier liturgical forms
and the ones from the fourth to seventh centuries.

The Mass as it is today, presents itself under a somewhat complicated
form to the non-Catholic, and even to a large number of the faithful. The
ceremonies, readings, chants, and formulas follow each other without much
apparent method or logic. It is a rather composite mosaic, and it must
be confessed that it does seem rather incoherent. Rites, indeed, have been
added to rites; others have been rather unfortunately suppressed, and where
this is the case, gaps, or what have been styled "gaping holes," appear.
[8]

Is it not possible that one of the aims of the reform of the liturgy at
Vatican II was to apply a bit more "method" or "logic" to the liturgy so
that it was more "coherent"???

At the same time Sacrifice and Sacrament, the One Christian
Sacrifice and, if one may say so, the most Divine of the Sacraments, it
sums up and sanctifies all the elements which have made of sacrifice the
center of the greater part of all religions; first, by the idea that man
owes to God homage for the gifts he has received from Him and that he recognizes
His dominion over all creation; then, by the idea that he must expiate
his faults in order to render God favorable to him; lastly, by a certain
desire to unite himself to God by participation in that sacrifice. Thus
the Mass raises the idea of sacrifice to its highest expression, whilst
purifying it from all the false notions which had obscured it in pagan
religions. [9]

Another example in an endless stream of the Church taking an ancient pagan
custom and purifying it for use to serve the Lord.

At the beginning of the third century we have a text the very
high value of which has long since been recognized, and which an English
scholar has attributed to St. Hippolytus. This text is that of the Eucharistic
anaphora, or of the Canon recited at Rome at the beginning of the third
century. To this also we shall return later on. Nor must we forget the
African writers of the third century, notably Tertullian and St. Cyprian
whose testimony we shall study in Chapter III. [10]

The Canon of Hippolytus is the basis of the current "Eucharistic Prayer
#2" of the Pauline Rite of Mass.

4. THE EUCHARISTIC PRAYER.--In the texts we have quoted from
the three synoptic Gospels Our Lord pronounces no prayer for the institution
of the Eucharist: none, at least, is given us. Neither does St. Paul make
any allusion to such a prayer. There are not wanting those who have wished
to supplement this silence; and it has been said that such terms as "hymno
dicto" (St. Matt. xxvi. 30) after the institution (see St. Mark xiv. 26)
presuppose a prayer. It has been also said that, the institution of the
Eucharist having taken place after the Paschal meal, Our Lord of necessity
recited the prayers in use on that day, as well as the psalms called "Alleluiatic."
Bickell's whole thesis rests on this hypothesis; he endeavors to discover
traces of the Jewish Pasch in the ancient liturgies, especially in the
"Apostolic Constitutions;" and other scholars have followed him along this
road. Quite recently Pere Thibaut has undertaken the same task again, in
a most interesting thesis. [11]

From the earliest of times the Mass was suffused with heavy Hebrew themes.

To give an idea of the Mass at this epoch we may perhaps mention
a text which was drawn up in the fourth century, though most of its leading
features are more ancient, and to which certain liturgiologists have given
a rather exaggerated importance, as they consider that it represents the
Apostolic anaphora better than any other. Yet it has not the same value
as the anaphora of Hippolytus, though it uses his text. The liturgical
design of the Mass is as follows: readings from the Old and New Testament,
preaching; then, prayer for the catechumens, penitents, and
those in other categories; the "oratio fidelium," the Kiss of Peace,
the ablution of the hands, the Offertory, Preface, "Sanctus," the prayer
of institution, the "Anamnesis," "Epiclesis", Memento, Communion,
thanksgiving, and dismissal. [12]

This is almost the exact same basic structure of both the Tridentine
and Pauline Rites of Mass. There is a difference in the order of the
rubrics but the essentials of both rites is evident from these third century
documents based on forms much more ancient then even the early third century
Canon of Hippolytus. Although notice the mention of reading BOTH the Old
Testament and the New Testament at Mass only applies to the Pauline Rite.
The other parts in bold are only in the Pauline restored liturgy which
(in these examples) shows to be much more "traditional" then its older
Tridentine counterpart

Book VIII of the "Apostolic Constitutions" is especially interesting
on account of the influence it exercised in the East, and even in the West,
and at Rome. This is a fresh argument in favor of that liturgical unity
in the first centuries, Hippolytus, Serapion, the "Apostolic Constitutions,"
and even Clement of Rome and the "Didache" all exploit a theme which presents
numerous analogies.We find one custom, which is that of the celebrated
church of Antioch, retraced in the "Apostolic Constitutions." In another
church which rivals that of Antioch in antiquity and fame--that of Alexandria--we
have the Canon of Balizeh, which appears to go back to a period less remote,
and which shows a different custom. But here, as with the different Eucharistic
prayers which we have given, we have a text with a universal tendency,
in spite of certain regional characteristics. [13]

Different Eucharistic Prayers??? Let us see, there are 4 different Eucharistic
Prayers in the Revised Missal but only one in the Tridentine Mass. Again
the Pauline Rite is better supported in another ancient detail then its
older counterpart.

We must now gather a few conclusions from all these texts.
The first is this: From the very beginning of the Church there existed
an essential rite, distinct from that of the synagogue; a rite which, from
the first moment, seems to take the lead amongst all others, of which in
a manner it is the center. It consists of the reproduction and reconstruction
of Our Lord's last repast, of the Last Supper in the Cenacle. This rite
is found everywhere. We have quoted the texts of Clement of Rome, of Ignatius
of Antioch, of Justin, etc. But we could have multiplied our witnesses.
A Christian traveler of the third century, Abercius, who had journeyed
through the East as well as the West, tells us in a famous inscription:

"My name is Abercius: I am the disciple of a Holy Shepherd
Who feeds His flocks of sheep on mountains and on plains; Who has eyes
so large that their glance reaches everywhere. He it is Who has taught
me the faithful Scriptures. He it is Who sent me to Rome.... I have also
seen the plain of Syria and all its towns-- Nisibis on the borders of the
Euphrates. Everywhere I went I found brethren. Paul was my companion. Faith
led me everywhere; everywhere it served as my food, a fish from the spring,
very great and pure, caught by a Holy Virgin; continuously she gave it
to eat to her friends; she also has a delicious wine, which she gives with
the bread."

This rite considered as a banquet and a sacrifice, has banished
all the other sacrifices. Although the Church borrowed so largely from
the Jewish liturgy, she left them their sacrifices. Those who attempt to
discover analogies between the rites of paganism and those of the Christians
cannot deny that the peaceful and unbloody Sacrifice of the altar has put
an end to all sacrifices of blood. That river of blood which flowed through
all pagan temples has been stopped by the Sacrifice of the Lamb.

This rite was accomplished with bread and wine. (Certain eccentrics
are pointed out, such as the "Aquarians" or "Hydroparastes," who, already
prohibitionists, forbade all wine, even at Mass.) Those who partook of
it wished to renew the scene in the Cenacle in relation to the Sacrifice
of the Cross; and were persuaded that under the species of bread and wine
they received the Body and Blood of Christ.

The rite, as has been remarked, presents numerous variants
when it is studied according to the testimony of different Churches, and
great liberty of interpretation and improvisation still reigns; but the
general and essential features are the same. What is called the Eucharist,
the fraction, the "anaphora," the eulogy, the synaxis, is always and for
all the same rite as that which we call the Mass. [14]

"Great liberty of interpretation and improvisation still reigned"??? Is
not that a primary complaint of the self-styled "traditionalist"??? Is
not the Pauline Rite "have too many optional parts not firmly fixed" do
we not hear that often from "traditionalist" circles??? Well it is a feature
of the earlier liturgies that the Fathers of Vatican II decided to apply
to the reform of the liturgy to avoid the kind of degenerative state that
had happened to the Tridentine liturgy by the mid twentieth century???

Notice too that the participants partook of both the bread and the wine.
This is done in the Pauline Rite today but not in the Tridentine Rite.
To highlight even more the Jewish roots of our faith, here are more Hebrew
similarities of note. Note also that the rite was considered to be "BOTH
a banquet AND a sacrifice." These are the dual metaphors of the Mass common
to the early Church which Vatican II sought to reinforce as a result of
a dangerous narrowing of perspective which started in about the Middle
Ages and seriously impairs the view of "traditionalists" (and many "Tridentine"
Catholics as well).

From that time--that is, from the first three centuries --we
see, both as regards the Mass and Baptism, a tendency to develop the very
simple original rite. To the kind of liturgic synaxis described, for example,
in St. Paul's meeting at Troas, where, after the Apostle's sermon those
present "broke bread" before separating, the heads of the Church under
whose control the liturgy was constituted, added sometimes one ceremony,
sometimes another. The union of the aliturgical synaxis to the Mass is,
already, a considerable fact; it is a prelude which in our own day has
the same extent as the rite of Sacrifice or of the Mass properly so called.
Hippolytus gives us an "anaphora" which is a model of precision and concision.
It is a brief, weighty sermon in a single breath; for the whole "anaphora"
proceeds without a break from the Preface to the conclusion, which is the
Amen of the faithful. The Fraction follows; the Communion, thanksgiving,
and dismissal. [15]

The earlier rites were simplified compared to the later rites showing that
the "traditionalist" argument against simplified rites has no historical
leg to stand on.

THE AFRICAN MASS.--In Tertullian and St. Cyprian we find numerous
allusions to the Eucharist and the Mass. By these we know that the synaxis
or meeting took place before the dawn; that the Sacrifice, or actual Mass,
was preceded by readings, prayers, chants, and by the dismissal of the
catechumens. Tertullian blames the heretics who allow these last to be
present at the Sacrifice. We also know that the bread and wine were consecrated
by the words which Our Lord pronounced at the Last Supper…[16]

Which I might add are not the same words used in the Tridentine Rite consecrations.
However, they ARE used in the Pauline Rite of Mass and almost verbatim
I might add (see Luke 22:19 for the Host and Matt. 26:27-28 for the Chalice).

St. Augustine completes this information. We may accept his
description given by Mgr. Batiffol (p. 100) of the Pre-Mass. The Bishop,
he says, awaits in the "secretarium" (a place close to the Basilica) the
moment of entrance. He enters solemnly, but St. Augustine does not speak
of the chant which should accompany his entry, and which corresponds with
the Roman. He salutes the people, probably with the "Pax vobis," but it
does not appear that this greeting was followed by the prayer or collect
customary at Rome. The readings, as in Spain, Gaul, and elsewhere, were
three in number--the first taken from the Prophets (and called Prophecy,
or prophetical reading), the second from the Acts of the Apostles or their
Epistles (the Apostolic reading), while the third was from the Gospel.
This was followed by the homily of the prelate, who commented on one or
another of these lessons; for usually the events of the day, anniversaries,
or the Feast itself had determined both the course of reading and the Bishop's
sermon. [17]

Those poor early Christians. Actually having three readings instead of
two. All that focus on the Liturgy of the Word detracting from the Liturgy
of the Eucharist. I can hear another "traditionalist" argument crumbling
to the ground. (I believe we are up to at least 8 distinct similarities
between the Pauline Rite and earlier rites that are noticeably absent from
the Tridentine Rite of Mass.) But we are not done yet gentle reader for
many more "traditionalist" canards are about to go the way of Ananias and
Sapphira (Acts 5:1-11).

The church" where the Station was to take place was a "Basilica,"
a great building inspired by architectural tradition as this was understood
in the third and fourth centuries, but modified since by the Church for
Divine service. Many of the most ancient Roman churches such as St. Clement,
St. Sabina, St. Laurence-Without the-Walls, have preserved this form. And
even those which have been altered again and again, like St. Paul Without-the-Walls,
have been reconstructed on the same plan. It was that of a long building
with a central nave, separated by columns from two lateral naves to right
and left, with an altar at the end and in the axis of the principal nave;
and behind the altar, an apse. At the end of the apse was the "cathedra,"
or Bishop's chair, and, all around it, stalls for the clergy; this was
the choir. The part surrounding the altar is the sanctuary, with an "ambone,"
or pulpit, or sometimes two, one to right, the other to left. [18]

Why on earth would the Bishops cathedra (chair) and the choir be "behind
the Altar"???

Today, as the altar usually has a retable
and a tabernacle, the priest when standing before it turns his back to
the people; so that when he greets them with "Dominus vobiscum" he is obliged
to turn round. The Bishop would be hidden on his "cathedra" at the back
of the apse, and could hardly follow the ceremonies, therefore his throne,
as well as the stalls of the clergy, have been moved to places before the
altar. But if we wish to understand the ancient positions, it will
help us to remember that at that time the altar was a "table" (hence its
name of "mensa") of wood or stone, forming either a solid block or else
raised on four feet, but in any case without a tabernacle; so that the
officiating priest would face towards the people, as he does to-day at
"San Clemente."In our own churches, of course, he officiates on the other
side of the altar; the Gospel side being the left and that of the Epistle
the right. As we explain elsewhere, another consideration has brought
about these changes: the practice of turning in prayer towards the
East, the region of that light which is the image of Christ, Who Himself
came from the East. The question of the orientation of churches was an
important one in Christian architecture from the fourth-twelfth centuries.
[19]

Contrary to popular myth, Mass said facing the people on a table-altar
is hardly the the "novelty" that many pro-Tridentine people would claim
but was in fact it was the more common position 8 to 16 centuries before
Vatican II. (And arguably from the very beginning if one takes into account
the private intimate setting of Mass in homes before the fourth century.)
Taking into account what I have just mentioned and also that the architecture
of the ancient churches up to the twelfth century was to accommodate Masses
said facing towards the people, what does this do to the following two
major objections to the Pauline Rite of Mass being either:

Not a sacrifices but instead is a meal???

That Masses said facing the people represent an "inward horizontal self-worship
of man" verses Masses facing away from the people manifesting a "true outward
vertical worship of God"???

Well gentle reader, these commonly espoused canards are now officially
killed and buried forever as legitimate criticisms against the Pauline
Rite of Mass. The errors of these sort perhaps come in large part from
the common but flawed notion that the earlier rites were as formalized
as the later rites became. However, such a position is lacking in any historical
foundation whatsoever. As even the Catholic Encyclopedia (1913 edition)
noted:

[A]n Apostolic Liturgy in the sense of an arrangement of prayers
and ceremonies, like our present ritual of the Mass, did not exist. For
some time the Eucharistic Service was in many details fluid and variable.
It was not all written down and read from fixed forms, but in part composed
by the officiating bishop. As for ceremonies, at first they were not
elaborated as now. All ceremonial evolves gradually out of certain obvious
actions done at first with no idea of ritual, but simply because they had
to he done for convenience. The bread and wine were brought to the altar
when they were wanted, the lessons were read from a place where they could
best be heard, hands were washed because they were soiled. Out of these
obvious actions ceremony developed, just as our vestments developed out
of the dress of the first Christians. It follows then of course that, when
there was no fixed Liturgy at all, there could be no question of absolute
uniformity among the different Churches. [20]

Yet the goal it seems of both "Tridentine" Catholics for the most part
(as well as "traditionalists" and even some of the liberals) is for a form
of fixity which did not exist in the early Church. As I noted earlier,
liturgies in the earliest of times were not so rigidly fixed. (The Rt.
Rev. Dom Fernand Cabrol noted this in "The Mass of the Western Rites" much
as the Catholic Encyclopedia has noted it as well.) Therefore, insistance
on the uncompromising fixity of the Tridentine Mass is hardly at all "traditional"
in any manner whatsoever since much of what was done out of necessity in
the past was incorporated as symbolic ritual later on (such as meticulous
cleaning of the paten or fingers, etc) and Vatican II in restoring the
liturgy would have been acting with tradition to remove what had become
more ornamental then practical in this vein - a point I noted in the treatise
on "traditionalism". To quote more from the article "Liturgy" from the
Catholoc Encyclopedia:

And yet the whole series of actions and prayers did not depend
solely on the improvisation of the celebrating bishop. Whereas at one time
scholars were inclined to conceive the services of the first Christians
as vague and undefined, recent research shows us a very striking uniformity
in certain salient elements of the service at a very early date. The
tendency among students now is to admit something very like a regulated
Liturgy, apparently to a great extent uniform in the chief cities, back
even to the first or early second century. In the first place the fundamental
outline of the rite of the Holy Eucharist was given by the account of the
Last Supper. What our Lord had done then, that same thing He told His followers
to do in memory of Him. It would not have been a Eucharist at all if the
celebrant had not at least done as our Lord did the night before He died.
So we have everywhere from the very beginning at least this uniform nucleus
of a Liturgy: bread and wine are brought to the celebrant in vessels (a
plate and a cup); he puts them on a table -- the altar; standing before
it in the natural attitude of prayer he takes them in his hands, gives
thanks, as our Lord had done, says again the words of institution, breaks
the Bread and gives the consecrated Bread and Wine to the people in communion.
The absence of the words of institution in the Nestorian Rite is no argument
against the universality of this order. It is a rite that developed quite
late; the parent liturgy has the words.

But we find much more than this essential nucleus in use in
every Church from the first century. The Eucharist was always celebrated
at the end of a service of lessons, psalms, prayers, and preaching, which
was itself merely a continuation of the service of the synagogue. So we
have everywhere this double function; first a synagogue service Christianized,
in which the holy books were read, psalms were sung, prayers said by the
bishop in the name of all (the people answering "Amen" in Hebrew, as had
their Jewish forefathers), and homilies, explanations of what had been
read, were made by the bishop or priests, just as they had been made in
the synagogues by the learned men and elders (e. g., Luke, iv, 16-27).
This is what was known afterwards as the Liturgy of the Catechumens. Then
followed the Eucharist, at which only the baptized were present. Two
other elements of the service in the earliest time soon disappeared. One
was the Love-feast (agape) that came just before the Eucharist; the other
was the spiritual exercises, in which people were moved by the Holy Ghost
to prophesy, speak in divers tongues, heal the sick by prayer, and so on.
This function -- to which I Cor., xiv, 1-14, and the Didache, x, 7, etc.,
refer -- obviously opened the way to disorders; from the second century
it gradually disappears. The Eucharistic Agape seems to have disappeared
at about the same time. The other two functions remained joined, and still
exist in the liturgies of all rites. In them the service crystallized into
more or less set forms from the beginning. In the first half the alternation
of lessons, psalms, collects, and homilies leaves little room for variety.
For obvious reasons a lesson from a Gospel was read last, in the place
of honour as the fulfilment of all the others; it was preceded by other
readings whose number, order, and arrangement varied considerably. A chant
of some kind would very soon accompany the entrance of the clergy and the
beginning of the service. We also hear very soon of litanies of intercession
said by one person to each clause of which the people answer with some
short formula. ...The place and number of the homilies would also vary
for a long time. It is in the second part of the service, the Eucharist
itself, that we find a very striking crystallization of the forms, and
a uniformity even in the first or second century that goes far beyond the
mere nucleus described above. [21]

Much like the Intercessions at the end of the Liturgy of the Word in
the Pauline Mass it seems. Also notice how multiple homilies were not uncommon
in some places. This is a direct refutation of an article at TCR’s site
which spoke of the "Protestant" nature of such matters.

In the Apostolic Fathers the picture of the early Christian
Liturgy becomes clearer; we have in them a definite and to some extent
homogeneous ritual. But this must be understood. There was certainly
no set form of prayers and ceremonies such as we see in our present Missals
and Euchologia; still less was anything written down and read from a book.
The celebrating bishop spoke freely, his prayers being to some extent
improvised. And yet this improvising was bound by certain rules. In the
first place, no one who speaks continually on the same subjects says new
things each time, Modern sermons and modern extempore prayers show how
easily a speaker falls into set forms, how constantly he repeats what come
to be, at least for him, fixed formulæ. Moreover, the dialogue form
of prayer that we find in use in the earliest monuments necessarily supposes
some constant arrangement. The people answer and echo what the celebrant
and the deacons say with suitable exclamations. They could not do so unless
they heard more or less the same prayers each time. They heard from
the altar such phrases as: "The Lord be with you", or "Lift up your hearts",
and it was because they recognized these forms, had heard them often before,
that they could answer at once in the way expected.[22]

Active responses by the laity became very scarce by the Middle Ages
so the concept of active participation of the laity in the liturgy is another
ancient theme that Vatican II addressed in its restoration of the liturgy.

We find too very early that certain general themes are constant.
For instance our Lord had given thanks just before He spoke the words of
institution. So it was understood that every celebrant began the prayer
of consecration -- the Eucharistic prayer -- by thanking God for His various
mercies. So we find always what we still have in our modern prefaces --
a prayer thanking God for certain favours and graces, that are named, just
where that preface comes, shortly before the consecration (Justin, "Apol.,"
I, xiii, lxv). AN INTERCESSION FOR ALL KINDS OF PEOPLE ALSO OCCURS VERY
EARLY, AS WE SEE FROM REFERENCES TO IT (e. g., Justin, "Apol.," I, xiv,
lxv). In this prayer the various classes of people would naturally be named
in more or less the same order. A profession of faith would almost inevitably
open that part of the service in which only the faithful were allowed to
take part (Justin, "Apol.", I, xiii, lxi). It could not have been long
before the archtype of all Christian prayer -- the Our Father -- was said
publicly in the Liturgy. The moments at which these various prayers were
said would very soon become fixed, The people expected them at certain
points, there was no reason for changing their order, on the contrary to
do so would disturb the faithful. [23]

It is amazing when you read the above passage that it applies far more
in description to the Pauline Rite then it does the Tridentine Rite.

One knows too how strong conservative instinct is in any religion,
especially in one that, like Christianity, has always looked back with
unbounded reverence to the golden age of the first Fathers. So we must
conceive the Liturgy of the first two centuries as made up of somewhat
free improvisations on fixed themes in a definite order; and we realize
too how naturally under these circumstances the very words used would be
repeated -- at first no doubt only the salient clauses -- till they became
fixed forms. The ritual, certainly of the simplest kind, would become
stereotyped even more easily. The things that had to be done, the
bringing up of the bread and wine, the collection of alms and so on, even
more than the prayers, would be done always at the same point. A change
here would be even more disturbing than a change in the order of the prayers.

A last consideration to be noted is the tendency of new Churches
to imitate the customs of the older ones. Each new Christian community
was formed by joining itself to the bond already formed. The new converts
received their first missionaries, their faith and ideas from a mother
Church. These missionaries would naturally celebrate the rites as they
had seen them done, or as they had done them themselves in the mother Church.
And their converts would imitate them, carry on the same tradition. Intercourse
between the local Churches would further accentuate this uniformity among
people who were very keenly conscious of forming one body with one Faith,
one Baptism, and one Eucharist. It is not then surprising that the allusions
to the Liturgy in the first Fathers of various countries, when compared
show us a homogeneous rite at any rate in its main outlines, a constant
type of service, though it was subject to certain local modifications.
It would not be surprising if from this common early Liturgy one uniform
type had evolved for the whole Catholic world. We know that that is not
the case.. The more or less fluid ritual of the first two centuries
crystallized into different liturgies in East and West; difference of language,
the insistence on one point in one place, the greater importance given
to another feature elsewhere, brought about our various rites. But there
is an obvious unity underlying all the old rites that goes back to the
earliest age. The medieval idea that all are derived from one parent rite
is not so absurd,
if we remember that the parent was not a written or
stereotyped Liturgy, but rather a general type of service. [24]

This is why I find the idea that the Pauline Rite is a "fabrication" and
that the Tridentine Rite is "the Traditional Mass" so absurd: if anything
the Pauline Mass resembles the ancient Western Mass Rites FAR more so then
the Tridentine Mass does. Also, it does not hurt to mention that the Mass
was said in Aramaic and Greek initially (most notably the latter) and this
was a fixture until Pope St. Damascus I (366-384) changed the primary language
of the liturgy from Greek to Latin which was the "vulgar" tongue in the
West. Latin was the vernacular language of the West from the late second
early third century to the eighth (approximately). It was the foundation
of the Romance languages (Italian, Spanish, Portugese, French) and was
the secondary language in the West up to the late seventeenth-early eighteenth
centuries much the way English is in the world today. If you could read
you read Latin. If you went to school you spoke Latin in class. It is much
the way English is today in the world: virtually anyone outside of America
who goes to school learns English as a second language. In this light the
move to the vernacular English language as undertaken by Vatican II is
in line with the same move by Pope St. Damascus I in the late fourth century
in the shift from Greek to Latin as the liturgical language in the West.

Returning to the book "The Mass of the Western Rites" for a moment, the
Rt. Rev. Dom Fernand Cabrol makes the following notations also on the ancient
rites:

At the time we are now considering (SEVENTH CENTURY) there
were neither crosses nor candles, neither tabernacle or retable; nor were
there any of these things till the ninth, or even the eleventh, century.
But the "ciborium," a kind of dome, or dais, usually supported by four
columns, was in use from the fourth century onwards, and sometimes at Rome
it was made of precious metal. The marbles, mosaics, chandeliers, and candelabras,
the lamps hanging from the vaulted roof and other ornaments in use from
the time of Constantine, show us that the Church has come out of the catacombs,
and that to primitive austerity has succeeded the desire to surround Divine
worship with splendour, upheld by the generosity of Christians. [25]

In the seventh century there were no tabernacles on the altar. So much
for any objections about the tabernacle not being on the altar during Mass.
Now there was a ciborium of course which is a kind of tabernacle but it
was not on the Altar and it was not used before the fourth century. (The
reader should recall at this point what I said earlier about Masses before
the fourth century being said in private homes.) Another clear example
of a Tridentine feature that was not present in the early Masses of the
first seven centuries.

I could go on and on but I think I have made my point. Anyone calling
the Tridentine Rite of Mass the "Traditional Mass" or the "Mass of All
Time" needs to do a lot of studying up on the history of the liturgy. (That
includes Mr. Michael Davies whose books are often recommended in this vein
by misinformed ideologues.) Note here I am not denigrating the Tridentine
Rite at all. Being one who believes in liturgical pluralism I support all
approved rites of the Church. However, to any "Tridentine" Catholics who
is overtly critical of features of the Pauline Rite of Mass (as opposed
to abuses of the liturgy or poor pastoral policies that have been detrimental
in the post VC II period), I have news for you: the Pauline Rite has a
greater similarity to the earliest Mass rites than the Tridentine Rite
does. We can dispense with the terms "New Mass" or "Novus Ordo" title now
because they are wholly inaccurate. The Tridentine Rite is NOT "the
Mass of All Time", it is not THE "Traditional Mass." It is one rite
only and was only in substantial form by the second millennium.

The canon was formed primarily out of the fifth to sixth century recasting
of the ancient Roman canon which Pope Gregory the Great put finishing touches
on in the late sixth/early seventh century. Other non-canon modifications
were made in subsequent centuries from the eighth to the fifteenth. (The
Confiteors and the Creed were added in the eleventh century, the Offertory
from the Offertory Prayer all the way to the Sanctus was added in the thirteenth
century, etc.) The form of the Missal which was in place by 1474 was in
most respects identical to the Roman Missal of 1570 codified by Pope St.
Pius V which was modified in minor ways six times between 1570 and 1962.
The Pauline Rite has more things in common with the pre-fifth century Masses
than the Tridentine Rite does but at the same time it employs the bulk
of its structure from the post fifth century restructurings much as its
older Tridentine counterpart does. The Pauline Rite has three readings,
communion under both species, simplified rites, is said facing the people,
there is often no tabernacle on the altar, the words of Consecration are
taken from the Gospels almost literally, there are a multiplicity of Eucharistic
Prayers, etc. These are all features prevalent to the early liturgies before
the fourth century and guess what??? They are also part of the Pauline
Rite of Mass today.

It matters not how liberals and Modernists tell us what the so-called
"Spirit of Vatican II" was since they have no Magisterial authority for
any of their abuses committed the past few decades since the close of the
Council. Does what I have stated in this essay mean that the Tridentine
Rite cannot be legitimately celebrated??? Of course not since if we look
at history, a genuine restoration would include a certain liturgical pluralism
that has been lacking since Trent. While liturgical pluralism was finally
officially allowed again after Vatican II, it was nonetheless never actively
encouraged in any form by the Church at large. (In fact, many if not most
bishops actively discouraged it.) Even the Indult of 1984 and Ecclesia
Dei of 1988 are mere facilitations and not active encouragement, although
the Pope’s presence at the tenth anniversary of Ecclesia Dei with FSSP
was definitely an act of encouragement in this vein which is very reassuring.

Much of the "Tridentine" Catholic objections are over externals that
the Tridentine Rite possesses and that the Pauline Rite does not possess.While
I agree that there is a good argument to having more external worship signs
and ceremonial ornament to the Pauline Rite, I do believe that the extent
of the Tridentine Rite repetitions tend towards a form of rubricism which
is legalistic. It should be pointed out that the true "Traditional Roman
Rite" was much more like the current Pauline Rite then the older Tridentine
Mass which has a fair amount of Gallican influence. Or as the Catholic
Encyclopedia noted:

So we see that at the latest by the tenth or eleventh century
the Roman Rite has driven out the Gallican, except in two sees (Milan and
Toledo), and is used alone throughout the West, thus at last verifying
here too the principle that rite follows patriarchate. But in the long
and gradual supplanting of the Gallican Rite the Roman was itself affected
by its rival, so that when at last it emerges as sole possessor it is no
longer the old pure Roman Rite, but has become the gallicanized Roman Use
that we now follow. These Gallican additions are all of the nature of ceremonial
ornament, symbolic practices, ritual adornment. Our blessings of candles,
ashes, palms, much of the ritual of Holy Week, sequences, and so on are
Gallican additions. The original Roman Rite was very plain, simple, practical.
[26]

The Pauline Rite is very "plain, simple, practical" too. It also
in light of all that I have covered in this essay is a genuine restoration
along the line of the ancient Western Mass Rites. This does not make it
above some forms of criticism of course either in the form of abuses of
the liturgy, poor pastoral directives allowed after the Revised Missal
was promulgated, or areas where implementation has in practice has not
worked as well as in theory. These are all legitimate criticisms and one
is not acting at all unorthodox in making them. However to call it a "lessor
rite" as some pro-Tridentine groups have done is also (in light of what
history and common sense reveals to us) profoundly erroneous since all
approved rites are equally sacred and one is not more or less "holy" or
"proper" then another one. (Provided that they are celebrated in accordance
with their prescribed rubrics.) Comments to the contrary get hung up in
style or externals and miss the whole point of the Mass which is an action
of Christ Himself. In this light, all other aspects are a distant second
in importance.

The citations from Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger were taken from the book
"The Ratzinger Report: An Exclusive Interview on the State of the Church
by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (translated by Vittorio Messori); Ignatius
Press, San Francisco, 1985.

The citations from the book "The Mass Of The Western Rites" by the Right
Reverend Dom Fernand Cabrol, Sands & Company, 1934 were taken from
an online version of the book located at the following link: http://www.ewtn.com/library/LITURGY/MASS.TXT